Page 1

Discussant's comments on "Framing Effects and Output Interference in a Concurring Partner Review Context: Theory and Exploratory Analysis"
David Plumlee
University of Kansas
I find the paper to be an interesting look at a practice-relevant audit task: concurring partner review. The authors use a research method that I believe to be very appropriate to examine the concurring partner review. In addition, they combine two streams of judgment and decision-making research to provide a framework from which they predict partners' behavior in a review task The framework the authors develop combines research that deals with (1) decision framing, which examines the effects of how problems are posed to decision makers on the decision reached, and (2) research on the effects of a decision-maker being given a possible problem solution on his/her ability to retrieve other possible solutions from his/her memory.
This study is preliminary and exploratory. There are only four subjects; one in each of four experimental conditions. Thus, I do not comment on the results because there is not sufficient data on which to base any conclusions. Instead, I focus on the appropriateness of the framework and on how the constructs are operationalized in the study.
Importance of Describing Audit Practice
Audit research is, by its very nature, applied research. I believe strongly that good auditing research must examine issues that practicing auditors find relevant to what they do every day. Audit research and audit practice form a partnership where the practitioners face problems and dilemmas for which audit researchers can provide structure and fundamental understanding. Both parties must benefit from this partnership in order for it to survive.
An important role for audit researchers is to develop meaningful structures for problems found in practice. By carefully observing events in practice researchers can infer the existence of certain constructs and relationships that can serve as theory in predicting behavior or outcomes in new situations. Theories of auditing phenomena provide explanations that practicing auditors can use to solve practical problems. Thus, I feel that research like the authors' is essential for audit research to maintain its viability.
I think that a good model for this partnership exits between physicians and medical researchers. Physicians document the problems they face, and researchers bring to the partnership training in science and research methods that are beyond those of the typical physician. Certainly the analogy between medicine and auditing is not perfect. For example, audit researchers' lack of access to actual work papers has no parallel in medicine. Nonetheless, I find research into the task of concurring partner review certainly to be in the spirit of doing practice relevant research in auditing.
Is this Framing?
One stream of research that the authors integrate into their theoretical framework is known as "framing." The authors rely on a definition from Bedard and Graham (1994) which defines framing as "the induction of differential response through use of particular forms of a given question or issue." While the authors' operationalization of the framing construct is consistent with this definition, I do not believe it is consistent with the construct's origin in normative decision theory. Furthermore, I believe that the authors' framing manipulation confuses differential responses to
195